Justice Shamim Ahmed held that there was no justification to hold that the juvenile is not entitled to bail especially in view of the fact that he had done substantial period of institutional incarceration, and had no criminal history.
“What is of prime importance in this case is that the juvenile, who is a young boy, less than the age of 18 years, has no criminal history. There is nothing said against the juvenile, appearing from the Social Investigation Report that may show him to be a desperado or misfit in the society,” the Court said.
Source: Barandbench
